The public is absolutely free to listen in on private systems (except for cellular) but not free to transmit on it. This is because of FCC regs, not because of some twisted interpretation of property law. Besides, we're talking Part 15 stuff when talking about Wi-Fi, so it's not a good analogy anyway. You generally can't transmit on a frequency you're not licensed to except in case of emergency, but that's not the case with Part 15 devices. In fact, one could argue that the owner of the open access point is the one at fault, since Part 15 clearly puts responsibility for preventing interference with the owner of the device, and I'd consider it interference if your neighbor's AP is putting our a signal strong enough to cause your wireless card to connect to it instead of your own AP.
Closed repeaters are also not a good analogy, as they occupy a gray area in the FCC regs, and have been controversial for some time. There are private property arguments, but I personally believe they're overshadowed by the fact that such repeaters are operated on publicly available bandwidth and thus there is no reasonably expectation of privacy or exclusivity of use. I've never heard of anyone being fined for intentional interference for using a closed repeater. The FCC regs clearly state that amateur frequencies cannot be used exclusively by any station, so for those that want a private network, go apply to the FCC for a frequency to run it on just like your local police department or Wendy's did. Besides, most operators of private repeaters do attempt to set some kind of access control using CTCSS tones, so once again the analogy just doesn't hold up.
I can't speak as to the laws of other states, but in Florida you are supposed to pass on the left as a general rule. Exceptions are as follows:
(a) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn;
(b) Upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving traffic in each direction;
(c) Upon a one-way street, or upon any roadway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement, where the roadway is free from obstructions and of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles.
(2) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle on the right only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. In no event shall such movement be made by driving off the pavement or main-traveled portion of the roadway.
No, actually he doesn't. Where I live, obstructing traffic/failure to yield the left lane is just as much of a moving violation as speeding is, although it's rarely enforced. So, he may still be within the law as regards his speed, but he's still breaking it by not yielding the left lane to passing traffic, regardless of how fast that passing traffic is moving.
Here in the U.S., you get your driver's license after you pay the appropriate fee, pass a written test on the rules of the road, and pass a driving test. Both the written and driving tests could be managed by a well-trained house plant, and most American drivers can't even recall the basic traffic laws, such as what the right-of-way rules are for their particular state.
I had occasion to drive in mainland Europe last month, and I found it a really refreshing experience - in particular, highway drivers there really seem to understand the whole "stay to the right unless passing" thing very well. Here in the U.S., it's commonplace to have some idiot idling down the highway in the left lane totally oblivious to the fact he's got a quarter-mile of traffic stacked up behind him, and will get offended if you flash your lights at him to pass.
Maybe they'll actually go with the story presented in the book this time? I found the book *so* much more interesting than the movie, and there's a lot more gratuitous sex in the book, so right there it gets the thumbs-up from me.
Planes already have on-board phones, so there is no reason to use a cell-phone.
Except perhaps the ridiculous amount of money that's charged for the use of one of those little toys. 500 free minutes with their own cell plan vs. a $10 service charge + $3.00/minute, which is more likely to appeal to the average passenger? Plus, not all aircraft have phones, and it sure would be nice to call whoever is supposed to pick me up at the airport and tell them that I'm going to be late because I've been sitting on the taxiway going nowhere for the last hour because of some ATC issue.
Practically though, if a picocell system is used, the airlines are still going to charge outrageous fees for its use, and won't have the expense of buying and maintaining a couple hundred phonesets per aircraft.
He doesn't need his vision checked - I have 20/10 vision as measured during my last exam, as do a lot of other people, and we can quite easily see individual pixels at better than twice that resolution. How do I know? I've sat down in front of a 22" IBM T221 running at 3840x2400, and yeah, I can still see the pixels although it's not objectionable at all at that resolution.
1280x1024 on a dual-panel setup is very low-res given what my eyes will resolve, and is absolutely the coarsest resolution that I would even consider purchasing, and would prefer something at least 1600x1200 for dual use. I wish that more high-resolution devices were available as opposed to larger devices - a 19" display is nice, but for that added real estate I'd rather have more pixels rather than bigger ones.
I'm not sure why one would consider law-enforcement officers qualified, and CCWers not in regards to firearms proficiency - most cops shoot just enough to pass their once-or-twice yearly proficiency tests, and those generally are not very stringent. It's a rare cop that actually takes an interest in firearms and attempts to excel in their use. The average CCWer will spend a lot more time at the range than the average cop, and also tends to take better care of his weapons, as most people don't have a staff armorer available to fix stuff for free when it breaks. I would also say that CCWers tend to understand the weapons laws a bit better simply because they're held to them much more stringently than are the police, and failure to abide by them has much more serious consequences. BTW, the fee in Pennsylvania by law is $19, but some counties seem to require varying amounts. I wish I had been that lucky - my permit was $117. [shrug]
Again I see the "what ifs" - if there are terrorists on board that are intent on destroying the aircraft to make a political statement (which is the general assumption being made regarding aircraft hijackings today), then any collateral damage simply does not matter if the action in question results in getting the aircraft down in one piece with a minimum loss of life. If 50 passengers are accidentally killed, it's still a more desirable result than losing all 200 of them and possibly more on the ground. Whether a passenger dies from a stray bullet, the terrorists' bomb, or the Sidewinder the Air Force used to shoot the aircraft down really doesn't matter to that particular passenger.
The last statement simply doesn't make sense. A sufficiently determined and resourceful terrorist organization WILL find ways to get weapons on the aircraft, regardless of what the law is. If one makes weapons on aircaft legal, sure, there will be armed terrorists boarding, but there will also be armed citizens with more at stake. We've experimentally seen the result of having armed terrorists and unarmed passengers, and it wasn't good.
Regarding the airline not letting you on board - if they issue you a boarding pass without having seen ID, it's a pretty fair bet they're going to let you on the aircraft. You don't get through security without a boarding pass these days.
Regarding firearms, I would consider "qualified" to mean someone that has demonstrated proficiency with a firearm and knowledge of the law regarding its use. Most individuals with a state-issued concealed carry permit would do, as would most law enforcement officers.
If the individual shoots, misses, and hits the aircraft, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of nothing happening - it's been proven before that a half inch or so diameter hole in a pressurized aircraft isn't going to cause significant problems unless it damages a critical hydraulic or electrical circuit, which itself isn't likely either. Besides, if you've got a group of hijackers on board that are intent on killing all aboard, it's rather a moot point, isn't it?
I can read quite well, and even better, I actually have reading comprehension skills - the original text says "in lieu of severance", which implies that he/she is already entitled to some kind of severance package and the 5 weeks' pay is being offered as a substitute. I suppose alternately one could interpret it as saying "gimme five weeks' pay and I won't quit", but that would be a stretch. "If you don't get it, sue" could be interpreted any number of ways, but absent a modifying phrase for "sue", one would reasonably assume it's in the context of the preceding sentence, thus implying the suit would concern the severance agreement.
Where exactly in the post in question did the interpretation of "in lieu of going to court over slander" come from, and this time let's see if our intrepid AC can do it without an ad hom, hmm?
Demand 5 weeks pay in lieu of severance (1 week per year). If you don't get it, sue
If the original poster is in the U.S., that will probably get him/her nowhere unless severance pay is detailed somewhere in the contract, if there is one. Most states regard employment as an "at will" situation, and if a given entitlement isn't in the employment agreement, for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist.
"The Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection."
You could argue "to whom it may concern" would include people within the U.S., but it would be a difficult argument to justify given that the Secretary of State is issuing that request. It's not SecState's job to be dealing with internal affairs, thus it's a reasonable inference that the request was directed at those outside the borders of the U.S.
As I recall, you actually don't need ID to fly in the U.S., but you do need a willingness to be severely inconvenienced by the extra security activity you'll be subjected to.
Let qualified passengers bring their own weapons onto the flight, and I think you'll see issues with terrorists go way down. Sure, you'll have the occasional incident, but the extremely low incidence of problems with concealed carry owners in the general public would seem to indicate those incidents would be very few and far between.
And this was also in the context of a Terry stop where the man in question was suspected of being involved in a domestic violence situation that had been called in. It's not like they just pulled him over out of the blue and started hassling him.
Because they've served their sentences and there's no legal basis to further restrict their movements. I think the whole GPS tracking idea is going to end up costing thousands, if not millions of dollars in legal challenges, and in the end may not be legally viable.
I'm very torn on this subject. I have an uncle who was convicted of diddling his 5-year old son and is known to have sexually assaulted several of my other cousins. He was recently released from state prison after serving 12 years for the offense. Because he's family I obviously care about him, but I firmly believe he belongs back in prison and should have recieved a much longer sentence - his actions really affected the child to a remarkable degree that simply can't be undone. He's shown no indication that he has any remorse for his actions, and I sincerely feel he's a danger to society. The libertarian side of me agrees that people that have "paid their debt to society" should be free to build whatever life they can for themselves unencumbered by the government, but the part of me that actually knows him understands that he needs to be under a microscope because the odds are better than good that he will do something like that again, and I am disgusted that any human being could do something like that to a defenseless child.
The Gold Dot hollow-points I carry are technically jacketed bullets, but usually when one speaks of "jacketed" rounds, one means full metal jacket. FMJ rounds don't expand to any great degree. That's why they were mandated for general military use under the Hague Peace Conference of 1899, and indirectly under the Hague Convention IV of 1907. They just don't cause a comparable amount of damage to hollow-points or softpoint ammo.
FMJ is *very* widely sold for use in target practice, since the jacket completely encapsulates the lead bullet and reduces problems associated with lead getting into the local environment. To my knowledge there's no such thing as a real "armor-piercing" pistol round, since the muzzle velocities simply aren't high enough. Sure, you could probably put a.454 Casull FMJ through a Kevlar vest fairly easily, but that's not representative of what the average street hood will be armed with.
I agree 100% with the statement that making illegal actions "more" illegal does nothing more than give a warm fuzzy feeling to those who aren't critical thinkers.
I'd think an RF tag that can survive the ridiculous accelerations a bullet encounters when fired (0-700 mph in about 100 microseconds for most pistols, 2-3 times that for most rifles) isn't going to be something that's economical to build.
Of course, that's a large part of why this idea is being pushed - to make ammo too expensive to own. I sincerely hope that if CA adopts this silly idea that the major ammunition manufacturers adopt the lead of Ronnie Barrett, who is one of the leading manufacturers of.50 BMG rifles. Since CA law enforcement was supportive of the recent.50 ban and went so far as to use one of Ronnie's rifles to show how "dangerous" they were, Ronnie has since refused to sell to any CA law enforcement agencies (including replacement parts), and told those agencies that had weapons at his shop for repair that if they wanted them back, they'd have to drive out to his shop in Tennessee to pick them up because he wasn't shipping them anywhere. Considering he gets about $8K for each one of his rifles, that's a pretty bold stance to take simply on principle.
Odds are pretty good that the microdot isn't going to be with the bullet once you find it. That idea would probably work with FMJ ammo, but hollow-points and frangible rounds would pose a real problem.
Major agreement on the observation that most crooks aren't the brightest bulbs in the box. My personal favorite happened about 20 years ago when a guy tried to hold up a gas station but failed to notice the state trooper filling up his car.
Sure, and in less than 30 seconds you can change out the barrel of just about any semi-auto pistol, completely changing the markings that will be left on any future rounds fired. This method doesn't work for most revolvers, but the point remains that it's fairly trivial to render any ballistics information totally useless.
Slashdot Mirror
The public is absolutely free to listen in on private systems (except for cellular) but not free to transmit on it. This is because of FCC regs, not because of some twisted interpretation of property law. Besides, we're talking Part 15 stuff when talking about Wi-Fi, so it's not a good analogy anyway. You generally can't transmit on a frequency you're not licensed to except in case of emergency, but that's not the case with Part 15 devices. In fact, one could argue that the owner of the open access point is the one at fault, since Part 15 clearly puts responsibility for preventing interference with the owner of the device, and I'd consider it interference if your neighbor's AP is putting our a signal strong enough to cause your wireless card to connect to it instead of your own AP.
Closed repeaters are also not a good analogy, as they occupy a gray area in the FCC regs, and have been controversial for some time. There are private property arguments, but I personally believe they're overshadowed by the fact that such repeaters are operated on publicly available bandwidth and thus there is no reasonably expectation of privacy or exclusivity of use. I've never heard of anyone being fined for intentional interference for using a closed repeater. The FCC regs clearly state that amateur frequencies cannot be used exclusively by any station, so for those that want a private network, go apply to the FCC for a frequency to run it on just like your local police department or Wendy's did. Besides, most operators of private repeaters do attempt to set some kind of access control using CTCSS tones, so once again the analogy just doesn't hold up.
As one can assume, sooner or later there will be no more room for more humans on earth.
Two words: Vegan choriomeningitis. Fixes things right up every time.
I can't speak as to the laws of other states, but in Florida you are supposed to pass on the left as a general rule. Exceptions are as follows:
(a) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn;
(b) Upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving traffic in each direction;
(c) Upon a one-way street, or upon any roadway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement, where the roadway is free from obstructions and of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles.
(2) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle on the right only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. In no event shall such movement be made by driving off the pavement or main-traveled portion of the roadway.
No, actually he doesn't. Where I live, obstructing traffic/failure to yield the left lane is just as much of a moving violation as speeding is, although it's rarely enforced. So, he may still be within the law as regards his speed, but he's still breaking it by not yielding the left lane to passing traffic, regardless of how fast that passing traffic is moving.
.
Here in the U.S., you get your driver's license after you pay the appropriate fee, pass a written test on the rules of the road, and pass a driving test. Both the written and driving tests could be managed by a well-trained house plant, and most American drivers can't even recall the basic traffic laws, such as what the right-of-way rules are for their particular state.
I had occasion to drive in mainland Europe last month, and I found it a really refreshing experience - in particular, highway drivers there really seem to understand the whole "stay to the right unless passing" thing very well. Here in the U.S., it's commonplace to have some idiot idling down the highway in the left lane totally oblivious to the fact he's got a quarter-mile of traffic stacked up behind him, and will get offended if you flash your lights at him to pass.
Maybe they'll actually go with the story presented in the book this time? I found the book *so* much more interesting than the movie, and there's a lot more gratuitous sex in the book, so right there it gets the thumbs-up from me.
Planes already have on-board phones, so there is no reason to use a cell-phone.
Except perhaps the ridiculous amount of money that's charged for the use of one of those little toys. 500 free minutes with their own cell plan vs. a $10 service charge + $3.00/minute, which is more likely to appeal to the average passenger? Plus, not all aircraft have phones, and it sure would be nice to call whoever is supposed to pick me up at the airport and tell them that I'm going to be late because I've been sitting on the taxiway going nowhere for the last hour because of some ATC issue.
Practically though, if a picocell system is used, the airlines are still going to charge outrageous fees for its use, and won't have the expense of buying and maintaining a couple hundred phonesets per aircraft.
But he does like his turtlenecks. :-)
He doesn't need his vision checked - I have 20/10 vision as measured during my last exam, as do a lot of other people, and we can quite easily see individual pixels at better than twice that resolution. How do I know? I've sat down in front of a 22" IBM T221 running at 3840x2400, and yeah, I can still see the pixels although it's not objectionable at all at that resolution.
1280x1024 on a dual-panel setup is very low-res given what my eyes will resolve, and is absolutely the coarsest resolution that I would even consider purchasing, and would prefer something at least 1600x1200 for dual use. I wish that more high-resolution devices were available as opposed to larger devices - a 19" display is nice, but for that added real estate I'd rather have more pixels rather than bigger ones.
I'm not sure why one would consider law-enforcement officers qualified, and CCWers not in regards to firearms proficiency - most cops shoot just enough to pass their once-or-twice yearly proficiency tests, and those generally are not very stringent. It's a rare cop that actually takes an interest in firearms and attempts to excel in their use. The average CCWer will spend a lot more time at the range than the average cop, and also tends to take better care of his weapons, as most people don't have a staff armorer available to fix stuff for free when it breaks. I would also say that CCWers tend to understand the weapons laws a bit better simply because they're held to them much more stringently than are the police, and failure to abide by them has much more serious consequences. BTW, the fee in Pennsylvania by law is $19, but some counties seem to require varying amounts. I wish I had been that lucky - my permit was $117. [shrug]
Again I see the "what ifs" - if there are terrorists on board that are intent on destroying the aircraft to make a political statement (which is the general assumption being made regarding aircraft hijackings today), then any collateral damage simply does not matter if the action in question results in getting the aircraft down in one piece with a minimum loss of life. If 50 passengers are accidentally killed, it's still a more desirable result than losing all 200 of them and possibly more on the ground. Whether a passenger dies from a stray bullet, the terrorists' bomb, or the Sidewinder the Air Force used to shoot the aircraft down really doesn't matter to that particular passenger.
The last statement simply doesn't make sense. A sufficiently determined and resourceful terrorist organization WILL find ways to get weapons on the aircraft, regardless of what the law is. If one makes weapons on aircaft legal, sure, there will be armed terrorists boarding, but there will also be armed citizens with more at stake. We've experimentally seen the result of having armed terrorists and unarmed passengers, and it wasn't good.
Regarding the airline not letting you on board - if they issue you a boarding pass without having seen ID, it's a pretty fair bet they're going to let you on the aircraft. You don't get through security without a boarding pass these days.
Regarding firearms, I would consider "qualified" to mean someone that has demonstrated proficiency with a firearm and knowledge of the law regarding its use. Most individuals with a state-issued concealed carry permit would do, as would most law enforcement officers.
If the individual shoots, misses, and hits the aircraft, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of nothing happening - it's been proven before that a half inch or so diameter hole in a pressurized aircraft isn't going to cause significant problems unless it damages a critical hydraulic or electrical circuit, which itself isn't likely either. Besides, if you've got a group of hijackers on board that are intent on killing all aboard, it's rather a moot point, isn't it?
I can read quite well, and even better, I actually have reading comprehension skills - the original text says "in lieu of severance", which implies that he/she is already entitled to some kind of severance package and the 5 weeks' pay is being offered as a substitute. I suppose alternately one could interpret it as saying "gimme five weeks' pay and I won't quit", but that would be a stretch. "If you don't get it, sue" could be interpreted any number of ways, but absent a modifying phrase for "sue", one would reasonably assume it's in the context of the preceding sentence, thus implying the suit would concern the severance agreement.
Where exactly in the post in question did the interpretation of "in lieu of going to court over slander" come from, and this time let's see if our intrepid AC can do it without an ad hom, hmm?
Or maybe you could research the laws on the books in different states, and discover that this is already the case.
Demand 5 weeks pay in lieu of severance (1 week per year). If you don't get it, sue
If the original poster is in the U.S., that will probably get him/her nowhere unless severance pay is detailed somewhere in the contract, if there is one. Most states regard employment as an "at will" situation, and if a given entitlement isn't in the employment agreement, for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist.
Yup - from my passport:
"The Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection."
You could argue "to whom it may concern" would include people within the U.S., but it would be a difficult argument to justify given that the Secretary of State is issuing that request. It's not SecState's job to be dealing with internal affairs, thus it's a reasonable inference that the request was directed at those outside the borders of the U.S.
As I recall, you actually don't need ID to fly in the U.S., but you do need a willingness to be severely inconvenienced by the extra security activity you'll be subjected to.
Let qualified passengers bring their own weapons onto the flight, and I think you'll see issues with terrorists go way down. Sure, you'll have the occasional incident, but the extremely low incidence of problems with concealed carry owners in the general public would seem to indicate those incidents would be very few and far between.
And this was also in the context of a Terry stop where the man in question was suspected of being involved in a domestic violence situation that had been called in. It's not like they just pulled him over out of the blue and started hassling him.
Because they've served their sentences and there's no legal basis to further restrict their movements. I think the whole GPS tracking idea is going to end up costing thousands, if not millions of dollars in legal challenges, and in the end may not be legally viable.
I'm very torn on this subject. I have an uncle who was convicted of diddling his 5-year old son and is known to have sexually assaulted several of my other cousins. He was recently released from state prison after serving 12 years for the offense. Because he's family I obviously care about him, but I firmly believe he belongs back in prison and should have recieved a much longer sentence - his actions really affected the child to a remarkable degree that simply can't be undone. He's shown no indication that he has any remorse for his actions, and I sincerely feel he's a danger to society. The libertarian side of me agrees that people that have "paid their debt to society" should be free to build whatever life they can for themselves unencumbered by the government, but the part of me that actually knows him understands that he needs to be under a microscope because the odds are better than good that he will do something like that again, and I am disgusted that any human being could do something like that to a defenseless child.
Forget the impact - the initial acceleration is likely a lot more forceful than any deceleration it will endure. Valid point just the same, though.
I want my freedoms, too, but my freedom is worthless if I fear criminals
Given a choice between fearing the government and criminals, I think I'm better off dealing with the criminals, thanks.
We tag guns to owners via registered serial #s.
Not where I live, and I'm quite content to keep it that way.
Well, we need to define "jacketed".
.454 Casull FMJ through a Kevlar vest fairly easily, but that's not representative of what the average street hood will be armed with.
The Gold Dot hollow-points I carry are technically jacketed bullets, but usually when one speaks of "jacketed" rounds, one means full metal jacket. FMJ rounds don't expand to any great degree. That's why they were mandated for general military use under the Hague Peace Conference of 1899, and indirectly under the Hague Convention IV of 1907. They just don't cause a comparable amount of damage to hollow-points or softpoint ammo.
FMJ is *very* widely sold for use in target practice, since the jacket completely encapsulates the lead bullet and reduces problems associated with lead getting into the local environment. To my knowledge there's no such thing as a real "armor-piercing" pistol round, since the muzzle velocities simply aren't high enough. Sure, you could probably put a
I agree 100% with the statement that making illegal actions "more" illegal does nothing more than give a warm fuzzy feeling to those who aren't critical thinkers.
I'd think an RF tag that can survive the ridiculous accelerations a bullet encounters when fired (0-700 mph in about 100 microseconds for most pistols, 2-3 times that for most rifles) isn't going to be something that's economical to build.
.50 BMG rifles. Since CA law enforcement was supportive of the recent .50 ban and went so far as to use one of Ronnie's rifles to show how "dangerous" they were, Ronnie has since refused to sell to any CA law enforcement agencies (including replacement parts), and told those agencies that had weapons at his shop for repair that if they wanted them back, they'd have to drive out to his shop in Tennessee to pick them up because he wasn't shipping them anywhere. Considering he gets about $8K for each one of his rifles, that's a pretty bold stance to take simply on principle.
Of course, that's a large part of why this idea is being pushed - to make ammo too expensive to own. I sincerely hope that if CA adopts this silly idea that the major ammunition manufacturers adopt the lead of Ronnie Barrett, who is one of the leading manufacturers of
Odds are pretty good that the microdot isn't going to be with the bullet once you find it. That idea would probably work with FMJ ammo, but hollow-points and frangible rounds would pose a real problem.
Major agreement on the observation that most crooks aren't the brightest bulbs in the box. My personal favorite happened about 20 years ago when a guy tried to hold up a gas station but failed to notice the state trooper filling up his car.
Sure, and in less than 30 seconds you can change out the barrel of just about any semi-auto pistol, completely changing the markings that will be left on any future rounds fired. This method doesn't work for most revolvers, but the point remains that it's fairly trivial to render any ballistics information totally useless.